Is science first-order?

Analysis 62 (4):305-308 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is a popular view amongst some philosophers, most notably those with Quinean views about ontological commitment, that scientific theories are first-orderizable; that we can regiment all such theories in an extensional first-order language. I argue that this view is false, and that any acceptable account of science needs to take some modal notion as primitive.

Other Versions

No versions found

Similar books and articles

Indispensability Without Platonism.Anne Newstead & James Franklin - 2016 - In Alexander Bird, Brian Ellis & Howard Sankey, Properties, Powers and Structures: Issues in the Metaphysics of Realism. New York: Routledge. pp. 81-97.
On inconsistent entities. A reply to Colyvan.Tommaso Piazza & Francesco Piazza - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 150 (2):301 - 311.
A realistic look at Putnam's argument against realism.Vadim Batitsky - 2000 - Foundations of Science 5 (3):299-321.
Properties and the Interpretation of Second-Order Logic.B. Hale - 2013 - Philosophia Mathematica 21 (2):133-156.
Scientific realism and mathematical nominalism: A marriage made in hell.Mark Colyvan - 2006 - In Colin Cheyne & John Worrall, Rationality and Reality: Conversations with Alan Musgrave. Springer. pp. 225-237. Translated by John Worrall.
In defence of indispensability.Mark Colyvan - 1998 - Philosophia Mathematica 6 (1):39-62.
Pure Second-Order Logic with Second-Order Identity.Alexander Paseau - 2010 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 51 (3):351-360.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-15

Downloads
235 (#173,957)

6 months
11 (#1,040,448)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ulrich Meyer
Colgate University

References found in this work

Truth and reflection.Stephen Yablo - 1985 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 14 (3):297 - 349.
Deflationary truth and the liar.Keith Simmons - 1999 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 28 (5):455-488.

Add more references